'.CORDS OF THE EDUCATION SOCIETY. 



No. 38. 



The Teaching of History in 
Secondary Schools 



By 



PERCIVAL R. COLE, M.A., Ph.D., F.C.P., 

Vice- Principal, Sydney Teachers' College, and Lecturer in Education, 
University of Sydney. 



/ I 




SYDNt> 

William Applegate Gul i > Government Printer. 

1918. 









NEW SOUTH WALES. 
THE TEACHERS' COLLEGE, SYDNEY. 



RECORDS OF THE EDUCATION SOCIETY. 

No. 38. 



THE TEACHING OF HISTORY IN SECONDARY 

SCHOOLS. 



BY 



PERCIVAL R. COLE, M.A., Ph.D., F.C.P., 

Vice -Principal, Sydney Teachers' College, and Lecturer in Education*. 

University of Sydney. 



t3H>8&-A 



SYDNEY: WILLIAM APPLEGATE GULLICK. GOVERNMENT PRINTER, 

1918. 



1 



\v 



y 












H 



INTRODUCTION. 

This monograph is intended to assist secondary school teachers who desire 
to treat history in such a way as to ensure the mental development of their 
pupils. Owing largely to the influence of the Director of Education, Mr. 
Peter Board, M.A., C.M.G., and of the Principal of the Sydney Teachers' 
College, Professor Alexander Mackie, M.A., the past decade has been fruitful 
in the development of scientific methods of primary teaching. Much still 
remains to be done before the method of secondary teaching may be expected 
to be adequately standardised. This paper is in close agreement with the 
published works of Mr. Keatinge; but I have gone beyond Mr. Keatinge 
in applying the canons of induction to the teaching of history, and in 
drawing up a general scheme according to which rational lessons may be 
planned. 

p.r.c\ 






The Teaching of History in Secondary Schools. 

[Paper read before the Teachers' Guild, August, 1918.] 

We, as teachers interested in secondary education, need to assure ourselves 
of the worth we attribute to each subject in the curriculum of the secondary 
school, and especially of the value of the subject of history, of the range 
which rightly belongs to it, of the point of view which should be adopted 
by its teachers, of the method by which it is to be taught, and of the -reality 
of the spirit of loyalty which is associated with it by our national tradition. 
Let us first ask ourselves the question: What is the subject-matter of 
secondary history? There are three sciences which treat directly of the 
past life of humanity — namely, anthropology, biography, and history. The 
first of these, anthropology, has to do with the natural history of man ; its' 
subject is the human animal. The anthropologist studies the races into 
which mankind is divided, just as the biologist studies the species of plant 
or animal life. The second science, biography, limits its attention to the 
lives of individuals. The third science, history, is not the study of man as 
an animal, nor is it a study of individual men and women; it is, indeed, 
the study of man considered as a member of a social group. As teachers of 
history, we must not disdain the facts contributed by the allied sciences; 
but we are under no obligation to become expert anthropologists or bio- 
graphical investigators. It is equally unnecessary that we should teach our 
pupils how many shot may be put into the skull of a Papuan, or whether 
Eousseau may have committed his children to an orphan asylum. 

All grades of history teaching are concerned with the social life of man. 
It is possible, however, to differentiate between the function of history 
teaching upon one level and the function of the same process upon another 
level. Thus, although the primary school, the secondary school, and the 
Fniversity all attempt the study of the past life of man considered as a 
member of society, it cannot be said that either the aim or the method 
remains constant throughout the three stages of instruction. The remark 
may be ventured, however, that the forms of thought employed in the 
primary and in the secondary school differ, or ought to differ, more widely 
than the forms of thought employed in the secondary schools and in the 
University. In the secondary school, at least during the latter half of his 
course, the pupil is already endowed with all the mental powers which in 
the University may be brought to a higher perfection, and may be applied 
to more intricate problems. In the primary school, however, and possibly 
during the earlier half of his secondary course, the thoughts of the pupil 
are normally concrete and imaginative, rather than abstract and rational. 

. It follows that the teaching of history in the primary school should be 
chiefly devoted to the cultivation of historical imagination; while in the 
secondary school, at least in the upper grades, it should aim at historical 
understanding. The primary school will endeavour, by the use of vivid 
narrative, pictures, maps, models, and other illustrations, to assist pupils 
to image for themselves as much of the grand pageant of the past as may 



be presented without haste or incoherence. There is no reason why the 
imagination should not continue to be employed at all stages of the study 
of history; but it is more essential, for example, that a portrait of Queen 
Elizabeth should be shown to a primary than to a secondary class. In the 
upper classes of a secondary school, however, the teacher will concentrate 
his attention not upon recalling the images of people, things, and events, 
but upon relations of cause and effect. Such relations, which are the 
characteristic interest of science in general, cannot be neglected even in 
primary work, especially as the majority of primary school pupils never 
reach the secondary stage of schooling. Yet causal relations only become 
the main pivot of the teaching of history in the high school; and then 
possibly only after the first two years. 

For two reasons, however, we may assume for our present purpose that 
the secondary teaching of history is concerned throughout with causal 
sequence, rather than with any other object. Firstly, our immediate concern 
is with distinctively secondary teaching. For this reason we need not 
dwell upon the pageantry of the past, which is emphatically an interest 
of the primary school. Secondly, while the imagery of past objects and 
events is not to be neglected in lower secondary classes, it is clear that 
even with these classes the teacher must give much of his attention to the 
causal connection of events. It is already time for the schoolboy, who 
cannot but possess some knowledge of cause and effect as they appear in 
his own everyday life, to comprehend that great historical events do not 
occur without causes, both immediate and remote. He can make use of 
causation, just as he can make use of time, without being able to define 
the concept. 

If the aim of the secondary teacher of history is to review the past life 
of humanity from the scientific point of view, then everything which has 
no bearing upon caue-al relations is irrelevant to his purpose. He is con- 
cerned neither with the dramatic nor with the picturesque as such. 
Shakespearian history is valid for primary but not for secondary schools. 
Shakespeare can treat King John without Magna Charta; not so the 
secondary teacher, for whom Magna Charta, not King John, represents 
the central scientific problem of the period. Even moral judgments are not 
the concern of historical science. They are affected by political bias, and 
are rarely made on scientific grounds. Broad theories are of little scientific 
value unless well grounded and rigidly tested. Thus the secondary teacher 
of history will dwell not upon the beauty, the emotion, or the goodness of 
the past as such, but upon the way in which certain causes have led to 
certain results. His principal aim is to use his material to develop not the 
imagination, the feelings, or the self-righteousness of his pupils, but their 
intellectual power. 

We are now in a position to define the content of our subject, to indicate 
our point of view, and to establish our method. 

Our body of knowledge is the past life of man, considered not as an 
animal, nor as a series of individuals, but as a member of society. We need 
not be historians ; but we must know how historians get their results. They 



cannot observe the past, which is their material, directly. Neither can they 
experiment with it. They are thus at a great disadvantage in comparison 
with physical scientists, or even with sociologists or psychologists. Then- 
materials are drawn chietiy from various narratives, documents, literary 
and archaeological remains. No historian can even be a master of all the 
material which he uses. He must take to a certain extent upon trust the 
results of philology, palaeograpliy, diplomatics, epigraphy, numismatics, 
archaeology, chronology, and historical geography. Yet his work is scientific, 
because of the critical and thorough methods employed by him in the search 
for truth, and because he reaches reasonably accurate results, if not the 
perfect and exact truth which belongs to no science unless it be to mathe- 
matics. 

Our point of view is that of science, or of the search for truth wherever 
the truth is to be found. 

Our method is that of reasoning. It is clear that inductive and deductive 
reasoning may be employed by the secondary school teacher and his pupils — 
(1) in drawing conclusions from passages of source material, and (2) in the 
endeavour to see the relation between cause and effect in connection witli 
the events narrated by the teacher or described in the text-book. It is not 
so certain that canons of induction, such as those drawn up by John Stuart 
Mill, may be profitably employed in the teaching of history, since these 
canons were founded to some extent upon the presupposition that experi- 
mental methods are possible of application. 

Let us, however, endeavour to apply the methods of agreement, difference, 
concomitant variations, and residues to the historical problem of the causes 
of the Renaissance : — 

1. The pupils having previously prepared the chapter upon the 

Renaissance in their text-book, will mention the various events and 
conditions which may have affected the movement — e.g., the inven- 
tion of gunpowder, invention of printing, geographical discoveries, 
genius of the people, rise of despotism in the Italian cities, recovery 
of many classical manuscripts, development of art and literature, 
fall of Constantinople, 

2. The method of agreement is applied. Was the Renaissance felt 

wherever gunpowder was known; wherever printing was prac- 
tised ; etc. ? A few of the alleged " causes," such as the discovery of 
gunpowder, geographical discovery, and the recovery of classical 
MSS., may be thus eliminated; but the results are inconclusive. 
It may be seen, however, that all the countries in which the Renais- 
sance was profoundly felt participated in the use of printing, in 
rich endowment of individual genius, in the institution of despotic 
government, in the development of art and literature, and in the 
resultant benefits of the fall of Constantinople. It is probable, 
therefore, that some of these conditions had to do with the causes 
of the movement. 



t 



>6 

3. The method of difference is applied. Can two countries be founds 

one with and one without a Eenaissance, differing in the main 
conditions and events of their history only in certain limited 
respects? If so, we have an important clue to the cause of the 
Eenaissance. It is not exactly possible to find two such countries.. 
It is evident, however, that the northern Eenaissance sprang from 
the Italian ; and that there was a Eenaissance in Italy before there 
was one in Germany. At this time, the important differences lay 
not in the knowledge of printing, which existed in Germany before 
it did in Italy, nor in the recovery of classical manuscripts, which 
is associated almost as closely with the one country as with the 
other. They lay rather in the genius of the people, in the personal 
despotism which had arisen on the ruins of the feudal system in 
Italy, in the development of art and literature, and possibly in 
the time at which Greek scholars from Constantinople made their 
appearance in the respective countries. 

4. The method of concomitant variations is applied. Did the Eenais- 

sance in the various countries of Western Europe vary according 
to the genius of the people? Yes. Did it vary in accordance with 
the degree to which government had become non-feudal, centralise 
and despotic? The answer, after investigation, will probably be 
qualified affirmative rather than a negative. Did it vary according 
to the period at which Greek scholars from Constantinople made 
their influence felt? Xot altogether, for Dante wrote without any 
such influence, and Petrarch with hut little. As for art and litera- 
ture, they are clearly dependent in .the main upon genius, which has 
survived the application of all the canons of inductive inference, 
in so far as the present inquiry is concerned. 

5. The method of residues is applied, in order that pupils may discover 

whether the conditions still remaining after the various inductive 
tests have been applied, namely, native Italian genius and Italian 
non-feudal despotism, are dual causes of the Eenaissance, or whether 
one of these conditions comprises the whole cause. In the Eenais- 
sance. how much is accounted for by natural genius? The following 
characteristics at least— a new note in art and literature, perhaps 
even a new spirit of investigation, and an assertion of the right to 
think. But the Eenaissanee meant mure than this. \t meant that 
classicism' became the fashion, and that the humanists or scholars 
of the period found profit in learning, literature, art, and diplomacy. 
Native genius does not account for all this. The personal despotism 
- of tyrants, however, does account for these residual conditions. To 
secure their usurped thrones, to defend and to camouflage their own 
characters; to establish their reputation among other States, and to 
gratify their own tastes, the tyrants vied with one another in 
attracting humanists to their courts, and in the encouragement of 
. poets, artists, and other men of genius who might create works of 
art in which their patrons' names should be enshrined. : 



9 

It would thus appear, as a matter of inductive inference, that the main 
causes of the Italian Renaissance were — firstly, the native senilis of the 
people; and secondly, the foundation of centralised despotisms upon the 
ruins of the feudal system in Italy. 

It may be objected that few lessons in history can proceed from beginning 
to end simply according to the canons of inductive inference. Let us, 
therefore, consider another lesson, largely but not exclusively inductive, the 
outlines of which are suggested by Allenf. In this instance, some of the 
actual questions to be asked of the class are given. This time the lesson 
deals with the causes of the Hundred Years' War. 

The pupils have read their text-book with the lesson in view. When asked 
for the principal cause they may probably answer that Edward III claimed 
the French Crown. 

Did he really believe that he should be King of France ? 

The pupils may be divided between yes and no ; but are unlikely to be able 
to prove their answers. 

Was he too noble to make any claim that was not well grounded? 

How can you prove that he was not ? 

Had he always claimed the French throne ? 

As a matter of fact, he had recognised Philip VI as King of France in 
1331. 
When victorious at Crecy, did he try to make himself king ? 

The fact that he did not seems to indicate that the Crown of France was 
not the real object of the war. Henry V, who really wanted the Crown of 
France, acted very differently. 

Had the French king given Edward any trouble ? 

The pupils have read in their text-book that he had given support to the 
Scots. 
Had the French king opposed England elsewhere? 

During the reigns of Edward I and Edward II the French had attacked 
Gascony. 

Why did England wish to keep Gascony ? 
Chiefly because of the wine trade. 

Why were the French and English unable to reach an agreement in connection with. 
Gascony ? 

Chiefly because of organised French piracy. 
Had England any other dispute with France ? 

The Flanders wool trade. 
Was Edward III personally indignant with the French king? 

We have no real knowledge as to this, or of such personal indignation as 
was felt by William I or by Henry V in connection with their French wars. 

t J. W. Allen, The Place of History in Education. 
37985-B 



10 

Did the war have nothing to do with the personality of Edward III ? 

If so, it must have been caused by bis subjects bringing pressure to bear 
upon him. There is no record of such pressure. Tins makes it probable 
that Edward III personally wanted war. 

Is it safe to ignore the personality of any mediaeval king '? 

Why not ? 

There is thus reason to believe that the personal will of Edward entered 
into the cause of the war. 

Had Edward any personal interest in Gascony ? 

We know that Edward received from Gascony large quantities of wine, 
for much of which he did not pay. Edward also received Customs dues on 
Gascon wine, and to lose Gascony, or to allow continued French piracy, 
meant loss of income. The war promised greater security of trade and of 
personal income, as well as honour and glory. We can readily see why 
Edward may have desired the war. 
Could ho count upon his subjects ? 

Yes, because they also were affected by piracy and by trade interests. It 
was even to their interest, as sparing additional taxes, that the Royal income 
from Customs dues should be large. 

The class now understands, as far as the evidence admits, the causes of 
the Hundred Years' War. The lesson is offered as an example of the scien- 
tific treatment which history should receive in the secondary school. Rome 
teachers allege that so much ground has to be covered that they have no time 
to proceed in this way. It is evident, however, that much ground lias been 
covered in each of the lessons which have been outlined; that not only has 
a chapter of the text-book been prepared, but that some revision has been 
involved; that discipline in historical reasoning has been provided; and that, 
even from the lower standpoint of examination grading, those candidates 
who are able to discuss matters in the manner indicated, and who have 
been trained in the analysis of causal relations, will receive much greater 
credit from any intelligent examiner than those who merely repeat the 
remarks of the author of their text-book. 

If the rational type of lesson is to prevail in secondary schools, it may 
be well to formulate the steps by which it may be generally conducted. 
These are: — - 

(1) The statement of the problem. 

(2) The selection of apparently relevant facts. 

(3) The framing of an hypothesis. 

(4) The test of the hypothesis. It may be necessary to repeat steps (3) 
and (4) several times before an hypothesis is found to satisfy the 
test. 

(5) The formulation of the result of the inquiry. 

(G) The application of this result to subsequent historical problems. 
This step may be taken during subsequent class work as opportunity 
may arise. 



11 

Although all pupils in the secondary school should be trained to appreciate 
-causal relations, their ability in this direction will vary to no small extent. 
In general, they are divisible into two classes — the first consisting of those 
who can understand causal relations when these have been explained to 
them; and the second, doubtless a smaller class, who are able to develop 
sufficient historical power to establish causal relations for themselves. The 
first class, broadly speakmg, should be our pass candidates, the second class 
our honour candidates. The power to establish causal connections for 
ones'elf is, however, necessarily a matter of degree, so that it is necessary for 
the teacher of history to give practice in this direction, as well as practice 
in comprehending relations already established, to all his pupils. To this 
end he should periodically present to his class passages of source material. 
from which they are to endeavour to reason their way to definite con- 
clusions. 

The following extract, with questions attached, was submitted to high 
school pupils of the third year: — 

After this the king had a great consultation, and spoke very deeply with 
"his witan concerning this land, how it was held, and what were its tenantry. 
He then sent his men all over England, into every shire, and caused them to 
ascertain how many hundred hides of land it contained, and what lands the 
king possessed therein, what cattle there were in the several counties, and how 
much revenue he ought to receive yearly from each. lie also caused them to 
write down how much land belonged to his archbishops, his abbots, and his 
<>arls, and, that I may be brief, what property every inhabitant of all England 
possessed in laud or in cattle, and how much money this was worth. So very 
narrowly did he cause the survey to be made, that there was not a single hid; 1 
nor a rood of land, nor — it is shameful to relate that which he thought no 
shame to do — was there an ox, or a cow, or a pig passed by. and that was not 
set down in the accounts, and then all these writings were brought to him. 

(«) From reading this passage, what do you conclude about the writer? 
(b) What do you conclude about the kings reasons for making the survey V 
(e) Date the passage as nearly as you can. 

The following answers were among the best received : — 

(1) 

(a) The writer of the passage was probably, since he is so conversant with 
the details of the survey, a member of either the witan or the surveying 
party. Since he also seems indignant at the minute and careful inquiry into 
the possessions of the landed class, one might conclude that he was a sufferer 
in the process. 

(/>) The king was undoubtedly short of funds if he took such a degree of 
care and trouble to ascertain the exact number of possessions his subjects had. 
and undertook the business most probably in order to ascertain by how much 
lie would be able to increase the burden of taxation. 

(c) He must also have possessed enormous power and influence over his 
subjects to be enabled to undertake the survey without active resistance from 
them. This draws the conclusion that the monarch was William I or his 
immediate successors, Henry I or Henry If, who alone could have undertaken 
the business with sufficient determination. In any case, the witan did not 
«?xist after the Plantagenet period, so we are forced to conclude that it was 
the Conqueror himself who instituted the survey in preparation for the 
Doomsday Book about 1070. 



12 

(2) 

This passage refers to the account of all the property in England which 
William the Conqueror had drawn up, and which was called the Doomsday 
Hook. Its date is between 1066-1070. 

It is evident that the writer was an Anglo-Saxon, and disapproved of Wil- 
liam's policy, and considered it beneath the dignity of a king to inquire about 
the private property of every individual. 

The reasons that caused William to make this survey were — (1) The king 
had no settled revenue, like that which he receives now. and depended upon 
the income derived from his own private possessions, and from the taxes that 
he levied : it would therefore be necessary that he see that he lost nothing of 
what was due to him, as even at best his income was insufficient for his needs; 
(2) William I was a complete stranger to England, and had no idea as to its 
wealth or resources. It was necessary that he should know, so that he might 
know to what amount he could levy taxes. 

These answers serve to illustrate the fact that the reasoning power of 
high school pupils is sufficient to justify tasks of this kind, which are, 
moreover, absorbingly interesting. Although they are selected as among 
the best offered, it is reasonable to suppose that a class trained in such 
exercises, as this class was not, would be able to do work of a correspondingly 
superior order. 

In the Intermediate Certificate Examination for 1017, English History, 
Part A, four questions were asked, only two of which were to have been 
attempted. Two of these questions were directed towards the interpretation 
of source material: and it was found that those candidates who attempted 
these questions were reasonably successful. It was felt, however, that at 
this stage questions founded upon passages of source material should be 
such as to call for no great originality or rational power. For example, 
two contradictory letters of Charles I were quoted, and the pupils were 
invited to show how far these l< tters illustrate the character of the writer. 
For those who had read their text-book or had heeded their teacher the 
•answer was comparatively easy. 

There is no contradiction, then, between the setting of these questions 
to intermediate pupils and the statement already made — that ability to 
reason for themselves should be the quality which should distinguish honour 
from pass students at the leaving certificate stage. The question is 
important, for there are some who would abolish honour papers for history 
at tbe leaving certificate examination. If the distinction above made is 
justifiable there can be no excuse for eliminating the honour paper in • 
history. There should be a paper to discriminate between candidates who 
possess historical power and those who merely possess historical comprehen- 
sion. The latter should pass, the former should gain honours; yet in an 
ordinary pass examination the one class might do as well as tbe other. The 
same paper will not serve to detect those who merely understand the con- 
ventional interpretation of history and also those who have developed 
historical power. 



13 

Finally, it may well be claimed that history is a subject which the people 
approve, which the war lias shown to need encouragement in the national 
intere'st, and which conservatism has always deprecated or actively resisted. 
History is one of the most accessible of school subjects, and all with any 
pretensions to education have some sort of grounding in it. The time when 
there was one education for the gentleman, another for the worker, should 
not be revived. The national interest requires the complete abolition of 
educational privilege; so that no greater dignity shall attach to one intel- 
lectual study than to another. Nay, if any one subject is to be privileged, 
as I think it is not, let that subject be history. A man may be well educated 
without knowing Latin or Greek, he may be Avell educated without knowing 
French or mathematics, but he cannot be well educated without a knowledge 
of the past; and if I should honour one secondary subject, or one secondary 
teacher, above another, which I do not, it would be the subject which 
explains the past life of man as a member of a social group, and the teacher 
who is inspired by the spirit of this subject and who devotes himself to 
the cultivation of an intelligent patriotism in the minds and hearts of the 
people. 



Sydney : William Apple-ate GullIcU, Ooveinmont Printer. — 1013, 



t 370S5- C 



